Sarah Palin Resigns as Governor
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
No not because she had an affair, but because she's focusing full time on a Presidential run in 2012. She's burned her ships. There's something you need to understand about a woman like Sarah. When a woman like her gets attacked, she doesn't cower in hurt. She gets motivated. You can't win giving a person like this negative energy. They only convert it to motivation and the more you attack, the more you support them.
Happy Fourth of July!
Tim
I couldn't disagree more and I can't wait for the chance to see it. Obama is as big of a joke as this country has ever seen.
From bowing down to the saudi king, to declaring that we are "Not a Christian nation", to disarming our military, to not not doing ANYTHING about north korea etc.
This guy is more of a national security risk then Bin Laden because he is killing our country from the inside.
Jeff
IF my memory serves me correctly, with all the attacks on Sarah for her children's choices, I seem to remember the media taking the opposite view when the choices of the Clinton children were brought into question.
My oh my how things seem to change depending upon who is for who.
The media turns it head on anything a Liberal Democrat does. If one thing is certain next to Death and Taxes, it is the media having a double standard.
I don't miss Clinton, I miss President Ronald Reagan.
Carter gave us Reagan, hopefully Obama will give us Palin!
How can you preach for abstinence when you cannot control your own home? It is setting up unrealistic moral restriction that put her in the limelight of hypocrisy.
With regard to Sarah Palin morals (Taxes, Faithfulness, etc) You can only based your assumption on what you know, but then I thought Mark Sanford is a moral guy too...
The bottom line here is that I don't judge anyone by their ability to stand straight on top of a fast moving wagon. If they fall off the wagon, I can understand it as long as they don't keep holding other people to standards they themselves or their under age kid cannot keep.
You mentioned hypocrisy. I used him as an example.
No she didn't. This is another case of her quote being misrepresented. She never said abstinence in and of itself is unrealistic. What she said was that she thought it was unrealistic for everyone to be abstinent. When you have congressmen and presidents cheating on their wives while in office, can you blame her for thinking that way?
I don't know about you but I don't follow the herd. Just because a lot of people are doing something doesn't make it right or smart.
I do know that over 20 frivolous ethics violations charges against her since her announcement as McCain's VP candidate have fallen flat on their face. If they had anything real on her, we'd know. The fact that they have to keep trying to make stuff up is very revealing about her character.
Tim
How using David Letterman hypocrisy justifies hers? And if it doesn't, why mention it?
Off course it is not unrealistic to everyone. Obviously it was unrealistic for her and most of adolescents in America. By the way, you forgot to mention also senators and governors (Which relates to my "off the wagon" comment)
Fine - drop moral and change it to legal. How many politicians have been caught breaking the law in the last 6 months? How many Obama appointees had to withdraw from their appointments for illegal activity? Was it 7? 8?
I think what Eddie is saying is this..
Sarah Palin has a view of how something should work (teach abstinence to cut down on STDs and pregnancy). But, Palin has been unsuccessful in upholding this ideal in her own home. And, even her own daughter thinks it's "unrealistic" to try to uphold that standard for children.
So, Palin now has evidence that she can't convince even her own daughter to remain abstinent. That should lead her to one of two conclusions:
1. She's not very good at providing moral direction to her family, as she was unable to uphold this reasonable ideal in her own home.
2. She's fine at providing moral direction, but the standard she is trying to uphold is unreasonable.
If it's #1, we should be questioning whether someone who can't lead her family should be leading the country.
And if it's #2, we should be questioning whether someone who continues to hold unreasonable ideals in the face of contradictory evidence should be leading the country.
Nobody is saying it's impossible to remain abstinent, but there is plenty of evidence that the educational approach is rarely successful and in recent years has led to higher incidence of teenage pregnancy.
Does Palin refuse to look at the evidence and base her decision on what's best for the children? If so, will she continue to do that, and ignore evidence of what is best for this country?
That's the only conclusion I can come to.
It's sad when people put there moral standards above the safety and protection of the children. It would be much worse when it's someone putting their moral standards above the safety and protection of the whole country.
I do not know of one parent whose childern do not call their upbringing "unrealistic". This does not mean that it is, or that it does not work, but that they choose not to accept it. You can teach it, but you can not force it upon anyone, it is their choice, and their choice does not reflect upon what is taught.
As far as "" but there is plenty of evidence that the educational approach is rarely successful and in recent years has led to higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. "" I would doubt this statement at its core, because even though there are many who would like to have taught abstense through the education system that just has not been allowed by the public education system. So there can be no statistics about abstinence leading to more teenage pregnancy in the education system as it has not been taught like many would like it to be.
If it says anything, it says the lack of such abstinence education has led to those results.
"If it's #1, we should be questioning whether someone who can't lead her family should be leading the country. "
This is backwards, as we see someone leading her family by example and teaching, not forcing them to do but allowing them to make their own choices. This is upheld by her own record against her own party who broke the laws, wheather or not she agreed to the laws, she upheld them. That is a pretty good leader to me.
"And if it's #2, we should be questioning whether someone who continues to hold unreasonable ideals in the face of contradictory evidence should be leading the country."
Once again there is no evidence to the contrary, or that the beliefs are indeed unreasonable.
One child, when I spoke of children does not a contradiction make. And now I see that you say that her kids (plural) made the mistake which has only been attributed to one.
Can you get things right?
It belongs to a parent how they choose to teach their own children and it belongs to the children how they accept or reject that teaching.
So again the assumptions that you state as fact are incorrect. The best interest of any child is to be a child and not try to be an adult before they are an adult and ready for adult responsibilities.
So I could state that your parents teaching you to have safe sex, which is not 100% safe, was not in their child's best interest.
If taught correctly and practiced corrected, it's certainly much, much more safe than what Sarah Palin taught her kids.
There is nothing you can teach that's 100% safe, so just try to get as close as possible...teaching abstinence isn't even close.
Science disagrees (you do believe in science, right Tim?)...
According to statistical analysis of the data, several independent organizations (meaning they having no vested interest in the outcome) have concluded that teaching birth control methods instead of or in addition to abstinence education leads to lower teen pregnancy rates.
Given that, why wouldn't you want birth control methods taught as well as (I'm not saying in addition to) abstinence education? Seems to me that a combination of the two is certainly more likely to be effective than just abstinence education.
Unfortunately, the right-wing religious nuts care more about their religious hypocrisy than they do about reducing the teen pregnancy rates.
Trying to make logic of the argument of teaching abstinence vs. safe sex, leads nowhere. Two different motives. Abstinence is rooted in religious beliefs and in that context, it is valid. You can argue the effectiveness of this method, but it is outside the point. Any argument that starts with those two words "I believe" kills the argument at the core, because every one is entitle to his /her own belief.
Every religious person has the right raise his /her offsprings according to their own belief (As long as it's legal and not imposed on others)
Trying to make it a logical, scientific, pros-and cons type - is fruitless.
Here's a bit of science for you Jason. Tell me the size of a pore in a latex condom and the size of the HIV virus.
Anyone who believes that story would have to agree that abstinence is not 100% effective...
Do you believe that story?